As a psych major I can tell you right now that unless you plan on getting a doctorate, don't get a psych degree. I'm telling my future children that I will pay for their education if they do two things: go to a state school, and get either a business or IT degree. If they want one of those namby-pamby fine arts degrees, or if they to attend one of those high-felutin private schools, they're on their own. They're also not allowed to drive my car until they turn 18... or maybe ever, depending on the gender of my children. If my boy is a typical high school boy who, like me and most of my friends did when we were in high school, lives by the moto "drive fast, take chances," then he's probably never driving my car. Then again, if he drives with his hands at "10 and 2" and always obeys the speed limit, that would make me a lot more worried. If I have a girl, it is 100% certain she will do one of two things while driving: talk on her cell phone or text to her friends. Hell by the time my kids are old enough to drive (and this is assuming the Mayan calendar, and the Conservatives who believe Obama is the anti-Christ, are wrong and there will still be a world when my kids are old enough to drive) they will probably have invented a demonic device that will allow high school girls to both talk AND text at the same time. Good lord shoot me now!
Instead I will buy them their first car, which will be either a 1983 Chevy Impala, or a 1988 Volvo station wagon (I just realized both of these vehicles either have been owned or are currently owned by my friend Josh. Just another example of how wise a man he is). Both are very safe, very slow cars that I know will keep my kids safe (honestly either of those vehicles could get t-boned by a dump truck and knocked into an on-coming semi and that MIGHT only dent the front fender), and it will also keep my own car free from accidents. If they don't like it they can take the bus or walk (As you can tell, as someone who has zero children of my own, I'm obviously an expert on parenting. If you need any more tips or advice, all you have to do is ask. Really, it's no trouble at all. You're welcome).
What was I talking about again? Oh right, something about being a psych major, and while this probably wasn't the best college choice, one of the reasons I chose it is because I'm always fascinated with not just what happened, but the WHY and HOW it happened. Is that a psych thing, or just a people-in-general thing? Whatever. So when it comes to the NFL, I want to know if the sky is really falling, if indeed it's a free-for-all parity-fest where anybody can beat anybody and there's no rhyme or reason to anything that happens?
Well, looking back at our 12 playoff teams from 2008, I can tell you to rest assured that there IS order to the chaos and a method to the madness. My favorite thing now at the beginning of each season is try and predict who the playoff teams are going to be by using the "6 in 6 out" theory (every season there's six teams from the season before who make the playoffs again, and the other six spots are taken by teams that did not make the playoffs the season before), and that there can't be more than 2 repeat division winners. Looking back at my predictions for 2008, I just didn't see any way that we'd only have 2 repeat division winners and that only 3 teams total would make it back to the playoffs. New England, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and San Diego all won their divisions in 2007, and looked on paper to be the four best teams in not just the AFC, but probably the league. And the two wild card teams from 2007, Jacksonville and Tennessee, both looked pretty strong as well.
As it turns out, the AFC did get four teams back in instead of three, but it did only have two repeat division winners (Pittsburgh and by the miracles of miracles, San Diego), while the Teetahns got back in by winning the South and the Colts made it back as a wild card. Yet because the NFC only had ONE repeat playoff team (the Giants), we ended up with seven new playoff teams, which was more than I expected.
Was this predictable? Could we have seen any of this coming? Of the 12 playoff teams, a whopping EIGHT of them were not picked by Vegas (in their preseason over/unders) to win at least nine games (which has always been the expected minimum to make the playoffs): Tennessee (Vegas had them for only 8 wins- they got 13), Baltimore (Vegas 6- actual 12), Miami (Vegas 5.5- they won 11!!!), Carolina (Vegas 7.5- won 12), Atlanta (Vegas 4.5- won 11), Minnesota (Vegas 8.5- won 10), Philadelphia (Vegas 8.5- won 9 with an inexplicable tie with the Bungles), and of course Arizona (Vegas 7.5- won 9 in the worst division in the history of the universe). Do these eight teams "surprise" teams have anything in common?
Well honestly, no, all eight of them do not. But if you throw out Philly (a unique style because of Bryan Westbrook and how little and ineffectively they run the ball), and Arizona because, and stop me if I've mentioned this before, THEY WERE 6-0 AGAINST THEIR HORRIBLE GAWD AWFUL DIVISION AND JUST 3-7 AGAINST REAL COMPETITION!?!?!?!?!?!, then the remaining six "surprise" playoff teams certainly do have something in common: they all took as much pressure as possible off of their quarterback with a strong running game and defense.
All six were in the top 12 in rushing offense in the NFL.
All six were in the top 12 in scoring defense in the NFL.
All six were in the top NINE for least amount of pass attempts.
Five of the six were in the top nine for least interceptions thrown (Vikings fans, want to take a wild guess which one wasn't even close to being in that group?).
It's a pretty basic formula, but it also proved to be extremely effective for six different playoff teams. Run the ball well, stop people, and ask your quarterback to do as little as possible. It's a strategy made famous by the Baltimore Ravens in their Super Bowl year of 2003, and less famously by the Pittsburgh Steelers for Ben Roethlis-fatburger's five year career (since 2004, the Steelers have finished 32nd-or last, 32nd, 14th, 31st, and 17th in pass attempts. Roethlisberger is a good QB who is now a certain hall-of-famer because he won his second Super Bowl, but I still find it laughable that he's considered a top 5 QB in the league right now when he's asked to do far less with far more talent around him than anybody else in the conversation). Run the ball, stop the other team, and hope your QB doesn't screw up when he has to do something.
Finally, while this is a recipe for success in MAKING the playoffs, it is not a successful strategy for WINNING in the playoffs. While it makes it harder still to predict playoff outcomes, it is nice to know quarterbacking still counts a LOT when things matter the most. None of our six teams made the Super Bowl, and only one (the Ravens) made the conference finals because they finally played teams who were good enough to expose their quarterbacks.
So store this one away in your memory for when August rolls around and we're trying to figure out who the "6 in 6 out" teams are going to be: who looks like they can run the ball and can consistently stop the other team, and we won't worry about how good their quarterback is until January.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment